Was He really a Master Teacher?

[Alessan]

[QUOTE=Monty]
What difference does the merit of the message (the subject being taught) have on the issue of one’s capability as a teacher? After all, there are good teachers teaching Shakespeare and there are bad teachers teaching Shakespeare. One would presume the message is the same.
[/QUOTE]

But if, instead of teaching Shakespeare, the good teacher was teaching, say, Harold Robbins, would his lessons be as enlightening? Would you still consider him a great teacher?

Let’s put it another way - would you call someone a “great coach” if his team never won any games? I wouldn’t. Not even if his coaching skills were the best in the world.

[Monty]

I’d say that the coach was obviously not imparting the appropriate knowledge or skill sets to the team if the team lost every game. My point was that, given the same material/same subject to teach, what is it that marks one a master teacher above your ordinary run-of-the-mill teacher? More to the point, what was it that made Jesus a master teacher? It obviously can’t just be the message.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Could you explain what the problem is? Again, i’m not saying it’s a necessity - that it being a good message means Jesus must have been a bad teacher, and vice-versa - only that it seems reasonably logical. If the message was great, it is possible that Jesus was an average teacher. If Jesus was a great teacher, it is possible the message was not so great. Your situation, of a good teacher and good message, is certainly possible, I don’t deny that. I’m just saying these are plausible alternatives.
[/QUOTE]

It seems to me considering the points I mentioned that he had some personal charisma. You seem to be saying he could be an average or poor teacher with some personal magnetism. I’m saying his charisma is part of what makes him a master teacher. That seems to leave the possibility of a mediocre message. I suppose thats possible but based on what we have in the NT I just don’t think so.

But it might be one or the other, rather than both, is my point.

I got that. IMHO Jesus as presented in the Bible is both.

An interesting choice of words. He presented it that way? Is it not an achievable thing that bridges all barriers of gender, tribe, and economics? Again we have the problem of message or man; is it the message itself that has these characteristics? Or was Jesus a great enough teacher that he taught people it was? Or both? But again, it’s the same problem. Did he allow himself to be killed because of what he thought and the type of person he was? Or because he was convinced of the message enough that it overruled his doubts? Or both?

He presented it as achievable by living it. He taught about love, and how people should live together and he taught it without compromise. Not, “try to live this way, do your best” it was “live this way, for it is the only answer”
People admire the principles but excuse many things as “we’re only human, you can only expect so much,” and the ever popular “that’s nice but that’s not how the real world works”

By actually being a human who lived it unto death he became a living example of his teachings. So, IMHO taking what we have in the NT I see it as the message and the man coming together to qualify as master teacher. That doesn’t mean I think the message was totally unique or that he was the only master teacher. I’m taking Jesus as presented in the Bible in his time and culture.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong or problematic with suggesting it could be one or the other.. but then your seeming certainty that he was the way you believe he was seems strange to me in return.

I’m not certain. I realize we don’t really know if Jesus actually existed. We were asked to suspend that and see the man presented in the Bible as real and make a judgment call. I don’t know how familiar you are with the NT but for me , taking the details I mentioned and a few others I just don’t agree with, or understand your assessment. It’s really no big deal either way. It’s just a what if question.

[Quasimodal]

I won’t consider Jesus a master teacher until I see him manage my Grade 4 class of nine year olds. Converting the world to catholicism seems easy in comparison…

[Revenant_Threshold]

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, cosmosdan. It looks like we’re on the verge of a question of interpretation and belief, and I don’t really want to get into another one of those debates.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, cosmosdan. It looks like we’re on the verge of a question of interpretation and belief, and I don’t really want to get into another one of those debates.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds okay to me. Peace be unto thee.

[simster]

The problem as I see it, and it was alluded to already… the only information we have on Jesus and his teachings is in the NT (as stated by the OP)… none of those writings were by first hand witnesses or students.

The only writings that I am aware of by a first hand witness (Gospel Of Thomas) has a very differerent view than those contained in the NT of Jesus… even the Gospel of Peter, etc… were not included.

So, if as soon as the teacher disappears, all of the lesson’s are forgotten or argued about (Acts has some details on some of the disagreements), I’d have to say he was a loousy teacher.

Also alluded to earlier is the question of how long the teachings would have lasted had it not been for Constantine and the work in putting together the first church and “Bible”… where I would argue that it was done not for “Holy” reasons but instead he saw it as a way to control the people.

[AskNott]

If we mean “He was persuasive, and a multitude of people claim to steer their lives by Him,” then I’ll call him that.

If we mean “He made His teachings absolutely clear,” He misses the mark. Some people say He was the Prince of peace, and they’ll study war no more. Other people say they are guided by Jesus every day, and yet they conquer nations and kill hosts of God’s children. They ignore the poor and the sick, and still, they claim to be loyal to Jesus. It seems to me that it’s not so clear how we are to be Christ-like.

A little nitpick: Is Christianity really the world’s largest religion?

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
There’s no such things as demons, therefore nobody can cast one out.

Why do I suspect you’re the sort of person who actually believes in demonic possession ?
[/QUOTE]

If the NT is accurate, how can there not be? It’s not a obscure reference, the scripture states 1000’s of demons cast out (though a majority in a single person), and multiple times that Jesus cast out demons - it was one of the main 3 things (teaching/healing/casting out demons) in His travels that He did and His Apostles were instructed to do. The demons themselves knew that Jesus was the Son of God long before the Apostles did.

I don’t know how anyone can believe the scripture and not believe that there are demons. Now for someone who doesn’t believe the scriptures I can understand.

[simster]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
If the NT is accurate, how can there not be? It’s not a obscure reference, the scripture states 1000’s of demons cast out (though a majority in a single person), and multiple times that Jesus cast out demons - it was one of the main 3 things (teaching/healing/casting out demons) in His travels that He did and His Apostles were instructed to do. The demons themselves knew that Jesus was the Son of God long before the Apostles did.

I don’t know how anyone can believe the scripture and not believe that there are demons. Now for someone who doesn’t believe the scriptures I can understand.
[/QUOTE]

Well, one could believe that the scripture was accurate for the beliefs of the writer, and that the word ‘demons’ could’ve meant any number of things other than “bad spirits”… or more succinctly… the writer believed in “demons” as in “bad spirits”, but today we understand those things to be medically/mentally related.

Similar to how the Flood story is rectified with the “whole world flooded” to now be understood to mean the “whole world as the author viewed it, not neccisarily all of the planet earth”.

[Little_Nemo]

Jesus was a great teacher, regardless of whether or not you agree with the message he was teaching. He understood the thoughts of the people he was talking to. He had a gift for memorable phrases that meant people quoted him and passed his thoughts on to others. He explained difficult concepts through metaphors that allowed people to understand them. He would take actions which drew public attention and then explain why he had done what he did. He knew how to hook people into dialogues and get them asking questions and how to answer those questions.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=simster]
The problem as I see it, and it was alluded to already… the only information we have on Jesus and his teachings is in the NT (as stated by the OP)… none of those writings were by first hand witnesses or students.

The only writings that I am aware of by a first hand witness (Gospel Of Thomas) has a very differerent view than those contained in the NT of Jesus… even the Gospel of Peter, etc… were not included.
[/QUOTE]

The OP asked us to assume that the Jesus was as he is described in the NT.

Here you contradict yourself. The NT is not the only information we have on Jesus and his teachings. As you point out. We now have other books to consider even if they’re not recognized by churches as scripture.

How do you see the Gospel of Thomas presenting a much different view of Jesus?

So, if as soon as the teacher disappears, all of the lesson’s are forgotten or argued about (Acts has some details on some of the disagreements), I’d have to say he was a loousy teacher.

This is just wrong. The fact that people made such an effort to continue his teachings is more the point. It’s totally unrealistic to criticize Jesus for the misunderstanding of his followers in an age when there was very little written record. Over the decades that followed there wasn’t 100% agreement about all the details but his teachings survived and people are still studying them.
To expect people to retain them perfectly and agree under those conditions doesn’t make sense.

Also alluded to earlier is the question of how long the teachings would have lasted had it not been for Constantine and the work in putting together the first church and “Bible”… where I would argue that it was done not for “Holy” reasons but instead he saw it as a way to control the people.

I think this is a valid question. However, when Constantine declared the church official Christianity was already pretty widespread. Centuries later people felt strongly enough to retain Jesus as teacher but dispute the churches version of his teachings. Perhaps if not for Constantine Christianity might have faded into obscurity, or perhaps we would have a different view of what Jesus taught.

[simster]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The OP asked us to assume that the Jesus was as he is described in the NT.

Here you contradict yourself. The NT is not the only information we have on Jesus and his teachings. As you point out. We now have other books to consider even if they’re not recognized by churches as scripture.

[/quote]

You’re correct, I did’nt make the point I was trying to make… Let me try again…

The ‘official’ teaching of Jesus (those contained within the 4 Gospels) do not include writings attributed to any of the initial students. The writings that we know of that have been identified as that of his direct students (Thomas being an example) were specifically excluded.

From that we can infer that the lessons those disciples learned did not match what the “Church” wanted to keep teaching, or atleast did not exactly match the lessons passed on by the other students.

That does not negate the OP’s assumption, but it helps to paint a larger picture of Jesus’ teachings, or atleast that those closest to the teachings got differeing viewpoints of the teacher/teachings.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

How do you see the Gospel of Thomas presenting a much different view of Jesus?

[/QUOTE]

IIRC, and it’s been awhile since I’ve read thru them, the Gospel of Thomas paints a more gnostic approach to Jesus, that he was “within us” and that there was some question as to wether or not the physical Jesus actually was there.

Contrast that with the Gospel of John where not only did Jesus exist, but he was “God Incarnate”.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

This is just wrong. The fact that people made such an effort to continue his teachings is more the point. It’s totally unrealistic to criticize Jesus for the misunderstanding of his followers in an age when there was very little written record. Over the decades that followed there wasn’t 100% agreement about all the details but his teachings survived and people are still studying them.
To expect people to retain them perfectly and agree under those conditions doesn’t make sense.

[/quote]

The further we get away from the first students, sure… but I would not expect the “class of '30” to start debating the lessons, the fullfillment, within the first days/years of graduation.

This directly speaks to the ‘quality’ as a teacher, as well as to the quality of the students… if the lessons were that good, and done in such a manner, I would not expect divisions to form over them immediately after the class was dismissed.

This is not to say that the “philosophy” or the “teachings” (and by this I mean the “red letters”) don’t and didn’t have value, but that the students entirely missed or forgot the bigger lesson(s) so quickly. (and we’ve been fighting over them ever since)

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

I think this is a valid question. However, when Constantine declared the church official Christianity was already pretty widespread. Centuries later people felt strongly enough to retain Jesus as teacher but dispute the churches version of his teachings. Perhaps if not for Constantine Christianity might have faded into obscurity, or perhaps we would have a different view of what Jesus taught.
[/QUOTE]

Christanity was widespread, yes… but there were lots of different viewpoints as to what Christianity was, different writings and creeds… Constantine conformed them to “one view” and declared anything outside of it to be heretical and banned.

[Sunrazor]

We have only the words in print attributed to Jesus. Even from my extremist view, which is that Jesus Christ is a mythological amalgam of Attis, Adonis, Osiris and other resurrected god-like charachters, the words and stories attributed to him are among the most powerful ever written down. Atheist that I am, I love the concept of Jesus because the story of him is one of the greatest morality plays ever. One of the hardest things a Christian can do is live the life Christ outlined for his followers. The lessons of the New Testament provide a road map for a life of righteousness, personal empowerment and enlightenment. Whether you believe that Jesus was a historical person who walked the earth or a mythological character invented by righteous men, yes, he was probably the greatest teacher who ever lived.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=simster]
You’re correct, I did’nt make the point I was trying to make… Let me try again…

The ‘official’ teaching of Jesus (those contained within the 4 Gospels) do not include writings attributed to any of the initial students. The writings that we know of that have been identified as that of his direct students (Thomas being an example) were specifically excluded.

From that we can infer that the lessons those disciples learned did not match what the “Church” wanted to keep teaching, or atleast did not exactly match the lessons passed on by the other students.

That does not negate the OP’s assumption, but it helps to paint a larger picture of Jesus’ teachings, or atleast that those closest to the teachings got differeing viewpoints of the teacher/teachings.
[/QUOTE]

I agree we may not have writings of the original apostles. Then work of Paul had a lot to do with spreading Christianity and although we do have some of his writings it’s clear the other apostles didn’t completely agree with him. When you mention the church though you change the focus. These were independent developing congregations. It seems perfectly normal, {not necessarily ideal} that people struggling to grasp these spiritual teachings would begin to impose there own ideas and traditions into those teachings. Remember , Jesus’ teaching career was only a few years. Even his apostles didn’t completely understand everything he said. Constantine came centuries later. It wasn’t that the church purposely selected doctrines that differed from the original apostles. At that point no one was sure. You’ll see a repeated pattern in religions where the person is deified and traditions and ritual become more important than the actual principles being taught. It’s not a lacking on the teachers part but just a part of how humans are.

IIRC, and it’s been awhile since I’ve read thru them, the Gospel of Thomas paints a more gnostic approach to Jesus, that he was “within us” and that there was some question as to wether or not the physical Jesus actually was there.

Contrast that with the Gospel of John where not only did Jesus exist, but he was “God Incarnate”.

It’s been a while since I’ve read it too. Basically a collection of his sayings with no linear story line. I think if we really look at the teachings of Jesus in the NT he stresses the inner journey as well. Those verses just haven’t become what is stressed by most Christianity yet are still a part of his teachings and still speak to people.

The further we get away from the first students, sure… but I would not expect the “class of '30” to start debating the lessons, the fullfillment, within the first days/years of graduation.

This directly speaks to the ‘quality’ as a teacher, as well as to the quality of the students… if the lessons were that good, and done in such a manner, I would not expect divisions to form over them immediately after the class was dismissed.

This is not to say that the “philosophy” or the “teachings” (and by this I mean the “red letters”) don’t and didn’t have value, but that the students entirely missed or forgot the bigger lesson(s) so quickly. (and we’ve been fighting over them ever since)

I think you make a valid point but are taking it out of context of the time period and circumstance. A man teaches for three years or so and then is taken away and his closest pupils are left to make what they can out of his teachings. Even those initial students wouldn’t all agree exactly on how to carry on his legacy. There was no central church authority other than the apostles and no structure in place. No pastors, deacons, or bishops. That was left for others. We see in the NT that as the apostles moved around to spread the word, the congregations they left behind would change and add their own interpretations. Again it’s the human factor. It’s only IMHO, but in light of those details I think it’s a tribute to the teacher and the teachings that we are still pondering them today.

Christanity was widespread, yes… but there were lots of different viewpoints as to what Christianity was, different writings and creeds… Constantine conformed them to “one view” and declared anything outside of it to be heretical and banned.

I’m familiar with this. I think other ideas such as gnosticism survived in secret. Regardless of the political motivations and corruption of the church the teachings managed to survive for centuries until the protestant movement began to make them more available for the average person. Again, I see that as a tribute to the teachings and teacher rather than a criticism.